SCA No. 129 Of 2018; Rev. Mabata Ata of Mavara Clan of Roku Village and Kore Kore Gaudi of Mavara Clan of Roku Village and Mabi Momo for and on behalf of Kuriu Clan of Roku Village and Sarani Ahuta for and on behalf of Kuriu Clan of Roku Village and Rei Auda for and on behalf of Tanomotu Clan of Roku Village and Tabu inogo for and on behalf of Gaibudubu Clan of Roku Village v Gaudi Logae, Chairman of Kuriu Land Group Incorporation and Kuriu Land Group Incorporation and Dr. Ken Ngangan as the Acting Secretary for Finance and Dairi Vele the Acting Secretary for Treasury and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2019)
Jurisdiction | Papua New Guinea |
Judgment Date | 12 April 2019 |
Court | Supreme Court |
Citation | (2019) SC1784 |
Year | 2019 |
Judgement Number | SC1784 |
Full Title: SCA No. 129 Of 2018; Rev. Mabata Ata of Mavara Clan of Roku Village and Kore Kore Gaudi of Mavara Clan of Roku Village and Mabi Momo for and on behalf of Kuriu Clan of Roku Village and Sarani Ahuta for and on behalf of Kuriu Clan of Roku Village and Rei Auda for and on behalf of Tanomotu Clan of Roku Village and Tabu inogo for and on behalf of Gaibudubu Clan of Roku Village v Gaudi Logae, Chairman of Kuriu Land Group Incorporation and Kuriu Land Group Incorporation and Dr. Ken Ngangan as the Acting Secretary for Finance and Dairi Vele the Acting Secretary for Treasury and The Independent State of Papua New Guinea (2019)
Supreme Court: Makail, J
Judgment Delivered: 12 April 2019
SC1784
PAPUA NEW GUINEA
[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUSTICE]
SCA NO. 129 OF 2018
BETWEEN
REV. MABATA ATA of MAVARA CLAN of ROKU VILLAGE
First Appellant
AND
KORE KORE GAUDI of MAVARA CLAN of ROKU VILLAGE
Second Appellant
AND
MABI MOMO for and on behalf of KURIU CLAN of ROKU VILLAGE
Third Appellant
AND
SARANI AHUTA for and on behalf of KURIU CLAN of ROKU VILLAGE
Fourth Appellant
AND
REI AUDA for and on behalf of TANOMOTU CLAN of ROKU VILLAGE
Fifth Appellant
AND
TABU INOGO for and on behalf of GAIBUDUBU CLAN of ROKU VILLAGE
Sixth Appellant
AND
GAUDI LOGAE, CHAIRMAN OF KURIU LAND GROUP INCORPORATION
First Respondent
AND
KURIU LAND GROUP INCORPORATION
Second Respondent
AND
DR. KEN NGANGAN as the ACTING SECRETARY FOR FINANCE
Third Respondent
AND
DAIRI VELE the ACTING SECRETARY FOR TREASURY
Fourth Respondent
AND
THE INDEPENDENT STATE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA
Fifth Respondent
Waigani: Makail, J
2019: 5th & 12th April
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Application for leave to amend application for leave to appeal – Leave sought to include appeal from interlocutory judgment – Supreme Court Act – Section 14(3)(b) – Supreme Court Rules – Order 11, rule 11 – Form 7
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Objection to competency – Objection to application for leave to appeal – Two modes of commencing Supreme Court appeal – Notice of appeal – Application for leave to appeal – Two distinctive modes of proceedings and must be commenced separately – Abuse of process to have both commenced in one proceedings– Supreme Court Rules – Order 7, rules 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7
PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – Objection to competency – Objection to application for leave to appeal – Jurisdiction of single judge to determine objection to competency – Supreme Court Act – Section 10(1)(a)
Cases Cited:
Henzy Yakham & Ors v. Dr Stuart Merriam & Anor (1997) SC533
MVIL v. Niugini Nominees Limited (2014) SC1334
NCDC v. Central Provincial Government (2013) SC1289
Tom Amaiu v. Sir Albret Kipalan (2009) SC991
Counsel:
Ms. P. Tamutai with Ms. Ngombo, for Appellants
Mr. J. Posi, for the First and Second Respondents
Mr. J. Aku, for Third Respondent
Mr. H. Maliso, for Fourth Respondent
No appearance, for Fifth Respondent
RULING ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO AMEND APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
12th April, 2019
1. MAKAIL, J: In the pre Henzy Yakham days, a party appealing a decision of the National Court to the Supreme Court on grounds raising questions of fact, or law, or mixed fact and law was allowed to file a notice of appeal and where required, leave was sought at the hearing to appeal grounds raising questions of fact: see Section 4(2)(a), (b) & (c) and 14(1)(A), (b) & (c) of the Supreme Court Act.
2. This all changed when the Supreme Court in Henzy Yakham & Ors v. Dr Stuart Merriam & Anor (1997) SC533 held that an appeal raising questions of law or mixed fact and law must be commenced as by notice of appeal in accordance with Form 8 of the Supreme Court Rules. Where questions of fact are raised, leave is required by Section 4(2)(c) and Section 14(3)(b) and leave must be sought by way of an application for leave to appeal in Form 7 of the Supreme Court Rules.
3. In this case there is no contest that on 17th August 2018 the appellants filed a notice of appeal. Subsequent to that, on 22nd August they filed an application for leave to appeal in the same proceedings SCA No 129 of 2018. By the application for leave, they seek leave to appeal grounds raising questions of fact. Both the notice of appeal and the application for leave were filed within 40 days of the National Court decision as prescribed by Section 17 of the Supreme Court Act.
4. They now seek leave to amend the application for leave to appeal to include leave to appeal an interlocutory ruling of the National Court refusing to join a party to the National Court proceedings. The first and second respondents oppose leave submitting that it was made outside 40 days prescribed by Section 17 and thus, incompetent and secondly, it was in breach of the rule in Henzy Yakham’s case.
Jurisdiction of Single Judge
5. A jurisdictional issue was raised as to whether a single judge may determine a competency issue arising from an application for leave to appeal. Except for the contention that there is no expressed provision in the Supreme Court Act or Supreme Court Rules conferring jurisdiction on a single judge to determine an objection and secondly that the application for leave to amend was time barred under Section 17, the respondents accept that the objection to competency is made to the application for leave to appeal.
6. This being that case the appellants submitted and is accepted that a single judge of the Supreme Court is conferred jurisdiction under Section 10(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act to determine an application for leave to appeal which includes the power to deal with any competency issues that may arise including objection to competency of the application for leave to appeal. A single judge must be possessed with such power because competency issues go to addressing the question of a valid engagement of the Court’s jurisdiction by a party to determine the matter, in this case, the application for leave to appeal: Tom Amaiu v. Sir Albret Kipalan (2009) SC991 and adopted in NCDC v. Central Provincial Government (2013) SC1289 and MVIL v. Niugini Nominees Limited (2014) SC1334.
7. It is on this basis that the objection to competency by the first and second respondents will be determined. As to the objection that the amendment sought is being made out of time thus, time barred pursuant to Section 17, as there is no contest that the application for leave to appeal was filed within time, the time limitation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
COVEC (PNG) Ltd v Peter Kama representing himself and for and on behalf of Damin Kamin Clan of Kumai Tribe of Kup, Kerowagi District, Simbu Province (2020) SC1961
...Ltd v. Kaugla (2019) SC1826. Minister for Lands and Physical Planning & Ors v. Air Niugini Limited (2013) SC 1233. Ata v. Logae (2019) SC1784. Charles Bougapa Ombusi v. The State [1996] PNGLR 335 Schubert v. The State [1979] PNGLR 66 Damane v. The State [1991] PNGLR 244 Arua Maraga Hariki v......
-
COVEC (PNG) Ltd v Peter Kama representing himself and for and on behalf of Damin Kamin Clan of Kumai Tribe of Kup, Kerowagi District, Simbu Province (2020) SC1961
...Ltd v. Kaugla (2019) SC1826. Minister for Lands and Physical Planning & Ors v. Air Niugini Limited (2013) SC 1233. Ata v. Logae (2019) SC1784. Charles Bougapa Ombusi v. The State [1996] PNGLR 335 Schubert v. The State [1979] PNGLR 66 Damane v. The State [1991] PNGLR 244 Arua Maraga Hariki v......